Maple Leaf Farms, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
633 N.W.2d 720 (2001)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Wisconsin law prohibited the discharge of pollutants into state waters unless the discharge was permitted under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES). The state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (defendant) administered the WPDES program. Maple Leap Farms, Inc. (Maple Leaf) (plaintiff) operated two large duck-growing facilities in Wisconsin. These operations generated 91,000 tons of annual animal waste, or manure, which could be used as fertilizer. Maple Leaf distributed some manure on company property and some manure on other owners’ farmland through contractual arrangements. Maple Leaf’s facilities were subject to the WPDES program to some extent because Maple Leaf’s animal-feeding operations discharged pollutants into state waters through runoff to surface waters and percolation to groundwater. DNR issued permits that required Maple Leaf to maintain runoff-control structures and procedures to store, dispose, and manage animal waste. Maple Leaf sued DNR, contesting DNR’s specific authority to regulate the distribution of manure on farmland that Maple Leaf did not own (offsite farmland). Maple Leaf argued, inter alia, that DNR’s authority to regulate offsite farmland improperly exceeded federal regulations and imposed an undue burden on Maple Leaf. The trial court ruled in favor of DNR, and Maple Leaf appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
